Sunday, January 04, 2009

Don't pity the Palestinians

Here follows one of the sickest things I've read in a long time, from ynetnews.com (I'm not linking to this filth):

Pity worst form of patronizing, will ensure Gazans continue to whine instead of acting

According to Adi Dvir...
Observers worldwide have been expressing great pity for the people of Gaza, many of whom have been killed, injured, or forced to flee their homes during the ongoing IDF operation. This pity may be a natural emotional reaction, yet it is unethical and immoral.

The author's ethical and moral compass seems to be whizzing around, finally getting stuck on the bizarrest position imaginable.

Our moral high flyer goes on:
To pity the people of Gaza is to patronize them, in essence implying that they do not control their fate, the state of their government, or their own actions. It is to assume one of two things: Either that Gazans are too stupid to oust the cancerous Hamas presence in their midst, or that they are unable to do so.

Heaven forbid that one Gentile calls this Adi stooopid and his brethern would start harping about 'anti-Semitism', but from his lofty 'moral superiority' it's perfectly ok to call an entire population group stupid.
Just as a crying baby who only elicits pity will continue to cry, the citizens of Gaza will continue to cry out to the world instead of taking matters into their own hands. As long as they are told that they are helpless victims or mere pawns at the hands of terrorists, Gazans will only see their suffering prolonged.

One has to assume that Adi is a great father: the kind that lets a baby cry itself to death, in attempt to instill some 'moral fibre' in it...
The residents of Gaza, and the Palestinians as a whole, say they would like their own state. Yet such state must be earned. And earning a state – a piece of land to call your own – takes much more than incessant whining to the international community coupled with a desire to drive out the Jews. It requires inner strength and the ability to create rather than destroy. This is what Israelis proved time and again for over 60 years, and this is what Palestinians have yet to prove.

The Jews will decide when the Palis deserve their own state and when not, d'ya hear! No one else!

Avi Dvir, it's official, you're an arsehole of the worst possible kind...

11 Comments:

At 7:31 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

You may think I'm an asshole/arsehole for saying this, but I will:

"The Jews will decide when the Palis deserve their own state and when not, d'ya hear! No one else!

The way Avi Dvir puts it, it sounds condescending, but he has a point. The Palestinians, too, have responsibility in this conflict and in the question of whether and when they gain independence. Israel won't completely pull out of the territories and allow the creation of the Palestinian state as long as it isn't confident that Palestine won't be a base for continued hostilities toward Israel.

It isn't about whether they deserve a state or not, it is about Israel's security and peace.

 
At 7:52 PM, Blogger Gert said...

But, Emm, this is precisely the crux of the matter: Israel will never be satisfied with the conditions that 'guarantee Israel's security and peace'.

This is like the bottle that never empties: one can continue to put up more and more conditions, requiring in the end 'infinite security' and then complain there is still some residual risk.

As Uri Avnery once wrote (paraphrasing from memory): "A people cannot obtain security at the expense of another people".

Even if a state of war broke out between Israel and the (now largely hypothetical) new state of Palestine, Israel would still be secure.

 
At 8:26 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

As the rockets from Gaza prove, a hostile Palestinian state can definitely make Israelis' lives miserable. They may not be able to defeat us, but they can endanger our personal security and quality of life.

There can never be absolute guarantees, but there needs to be a certain degree of confidence in the other side. I can't say what that level is, but I do know we're not there yet. We need to build it gradually.

 
At 9:02 PM, Blogger Gert said...

It's the old bankrupt, 'sequential, conditional' thinking: first 'they' must create conditions, the 'we' will examine these. In the mean time 'we' reserve the right to continue building more settlements, as no one can or will stop us. Anyone trying to stop 'us' is a terrorist. When conditions on the ground in the WB (number and size of settlements) has become too large to realistically withdraw (ooops! I meant 'disengage', sorry - 'realign') we can blame terrorist intransigence and annex the lot. Resistance to that can be met with expelling terrorists and their extended families (the latter on the ground that they pose a 'security risk').

 
At 12:56 AM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

Do you read my comments, or are comments on one post not relevant to other posts? You should know by now that the kind of stuff you wrote in your reply isn't my position and it is quite frustrating to see that you answer my comments as if I'm a right-winger plotting to take over the West Bank under the guise of peace talks. Who are you arguing with - Bibi Netanyahu or me?

"It's the old bankrupt, 'sequential, conditional' thinking: first 'they' must create conditions, the 'we' will examine these."

As I said, we need to build confidence gradually. At each stage both sides have responsibilities. For instance, one of the stages can go something like this: while the PA police stop terrorism against Israel by arresting militants while Israel removes roadblocks and a certain number of settlements and freezes construction in the ones that will be evacuated at later stages (in this scenario Israel does not wait for Palestinians to do their part first, but does it simultaneously).

 
At 8:52 AM, Blogger Renegade Eye said...

Zionism needs Hamas. They are perfect foils. The attack on Gaza is against civilians.

Both sides don't care about civilians.

The key to peace in the Middle East is a socialist Egypt. It would tear down the border with Gaza, provide healthcare and schooling. If they want to be Egyptian or Palestinian, they would have the right to self determination.

The socialist example of Egypt would cause Israelis, to go back to their own socialist roots.

Heck 10,000 Israelis protested the Gaza attack in Tel Aviv. That city gave 35% of its vote to The Communist Party.

 
At 9:59 AM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

"Do you read my comments, or are comments on one post not relevant to other posts? You should know by now that the kind of stuff you wrote in your reply isn't my position and it is quite frustrating to see that you answer my comments as if I'm a right-winger plotting to take over the West Bank under the guise of peace talks. Who are you arguing with - Bibi Netanyahu or me?"

Calm down. There is a good dollop of sarcasm in some of my responses, try reading inter alea. My profile says I'm 42 but that hasn't been updated I started this blog. I'm actually 47: perhaps I've been waiting for anything to move for much longer than you and it's taking its toll?

 
At 11:00 AM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

Renegade Eye:

"Zionism needs Hamas. They are perfect foils. The attack on Gaza is against civilians.

Both sides don't care about civilians.


The "it's a massacre!" crowd likes to repeat this, even though it couldn't be farther from the truth. The vast majority of Palestinian casualties are Hamas militants. Israel has been doing its best to avoid civilian casualties, going as far as warning families of imminent attacks, including the family of archterrorist Nizar Rayyan. It has been allowing aid into the strip throughout the operation.

So no, Israel cares about civilians on both sides. Hamas doesn't care about them on either side.

"The key to peace in the Middle East is a socialist Egypt. It would tear down the border with Gaza, provide healthcare and schooling. If they want to be Egyptian or Palestinian, they would have the right to self determination."

Israel would love it if Egypt took responsibility for Gaza. Begin wanted to give it to Sadat together with Sinai, but Sadat didn't want to rule over the Gazans.

Now, whether Egypt is socialist or not, we couldn't care less. As long as the Muslim Brotherhood doesn't take over, we're fine with any regime that would respect the peace treaty with Israel.

"The socialist example of Egypt would cause Israelis, to go back to their own socialist roots."

You really don't know Israeli society if you think Israelis look to Egypt or any other Arab country for inspiration. We may be Middle Eastern, but we'd like to think of ourselves as Western European or North American. We don't tend to immitate countries that are outside those geographical regions.

"That city gave 35% of its vote to The Communist Party."

Dov Hanin, a communist member of the Knesset, didn't run for mayor of Tel-Aviv as a communist. The way things work on the municipal level in Israel, candidates usually don't run as representatives of their national parties, but have a local "mini-party" which is a coalition of different groups.

The vote for Hanin wasn't about communism, it was mainly a protest vote against the incumbent mayor and the high rental prices in the city.

 
At 12:29 PM, Blogger Gert said...

Emm:

"Hamas doesn't care about them on either side."

Guess this was your turn to 'slip'. Hamas do really provide services for the people it elected. They really are more than just a terrorist organisation.

How do the settlements improve security in Israel proper? It doesn't, quite the contrary. By the same token I could (wrongly) conclude that O,L and B don't care about Israeli civilians being killed either.

 
At 3:26 PM, Blogger Emmanuel said...

Crap. I wrote a long response and it all got lost. Nevermind.

The source of Hamas's power is the plight of the Palestinians. This works on two levels: Gazans are dependent on its social services, and also Hamas needs the population to feel it needs the Hamasnik military might to liberate them.

When Palestinian civilians are hurt and killed, Hamas is empowered both by the rise in hatred for Israel and by the rise in need for their social services.

So no, I don't think Hamas cares about civilians. At least its military wing doesn't.

The settlement analogy doesn't quite fit, IMHO. They may be very bad for Israel, but they don't directly endanger civilians in the same way that shooting rockets from population centers does.

 
At 4:16 PM, Blogger Gert said...

"Crap. I wrote a long response and it all got lost. Nevermind."

I always, always compose in Word first, only then cut and past into the comment section, wherever I go.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home